I couldn't resist posting just one more item about Governor Christie. Or in this case another video of him explaining to a media pinhead about his "confrontational tone" with the entrenched interests infesting the Garden State.
Could New Jersey governor Chris Christie be the next Ronald Reagan? It certainly seems like he's channeling the Gipper, and to good effect.
Probably one of his most Reaganesque moments took place during a town hall meeting.
One of Christie's most popular YouTube moments is a confrontation with an angry teacher, who upbraids him for not paying her enough. When Christie replies that if she doesn't like the pay package "then you don't have to do it," the crowd cheers like the Giants just scored a touchdown.
Listening to the teacher's complaints makes it quite clear she believes she's entitled to more pay, that it's owed to her. It turns out her salary at the time of the video was $86,389 per year, not including benefits. I don't know about you, but $86K per year is nothing to sneeze at. Christie was right to give her the answer he did. It also reminds us of another of Christie's Reaganesque moments.
Christie's cuts to school funding have earned him the enmity of the state teachers' union, with 200,000 members. The governor asked teachers to agree to a one-year salary freeze and to kick in 1.5 percent of their pay to help fund their health care insurance -- most of the state's teachers don't contribute to their plans.
Teachers in many school districts refused. As he had threatened during discussions with the unions, Christie called on constituents to vote down local school board budgets that didn't conform to his requests. Christie won the public fight. A surprising 58 percent of proposed budgets were defeated, making it the largest number of rejections on state record.
Just as Reagan did in 1981, when he faced off with the air traffic controllers union, Christie called the bluff and seems to have won.
How many times did Reagan go to the airwaves to ask the American public to contact their congressional representatives in order to get something he firmly believed was needed to fix the problems plaguing America through Congress? And how many times did they respond, giving the Gipper what he needed? It looks like Christie is following the same path and getting similar results.
The present governor of New Jersey bears watching as he goes over, under, around, and through the entrenched bureaucracies, union constituencies, and 'gimmee' special interest groups to put New Jersey's fiscal house in order.
Among the many reverberations of President Obama's election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.
The House has not had a black Republican since 2003, when J. C. Watts of Oklahoma left after eight years.
But now black Republicans are running across the country -- from a largely white swath of beach communities in Florida to the suburbs of Phoenix, where an African-American candidate has raised more money than all but two of his nine (white) Republican competitors in the primary.
While Democrat leaders try to downplay the chances of black Republicans running against incumbent Democrats, they are overlooking the increasing anger against Congress, and Democrats in particular. I have a feeling far too many Democrats feel that the American people will have gotten over the anger caused by Democrats in Congress (and the White House) ignoring the will of a majority of Americans and shifting the course of US hard to the left. Come November quite a few Congressional Democrats may find they're out of a job, with some of them replaced by conservative blacks.
Of course should a wholesale defeat of a large number of Democrats take place in November I expect the Democrat leadership to say something along the lines of "Obviously the electorate didn't understand our plans and failed to appreciate the new direction we're trying to move this country," or "The voters were stupid and bought the TEA party rhetoric hook, line, and sinker." But they would never admit they were wrong or that the American people didn't want this country to become another dystopian socialist economic hellhole the Democrats have been trying so hard to create.
Thursday I attended one of the hundreds of TEA party protests held around the nation. Turnout was around 1000, which was similar to last year's Tax Day TEA Party protest.
Of the myriad of speakers at the protest, only one was a sitting member of the House of Representatives and he was visiting from Michigan. A number of Congressional hopefuls were there, but none spoke, preferring to press the flesh and speak one-on-one with TEA party supporters. Not surprisingly, only GOP candidates showed up even though invitations were extended to candidates from all parties.
Three of the more inspiring speakers included former US Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH), Thom Thomson - son of the late New Hampshire governor Meldrim Thomson, and former New Hampshire Senator George Lovejoy.
Senator Humphrey related his experiences of serving in the Senate for two terms. (He promised when he was elected that he'd only serve two terms, then come home. He kept his promise.) The one thing he said that stuck in my mind was his comparison of Congress to "a pit of vipers." He also warned that even those with the best of intentions when they arrive in Washington are eventually seduced by the power their office confers. It doesn't happen quickly, but it does happen, which is why he has supported term limits. He also led the call to "Throw the bums OUT!", something the crowd quickly picked up and chanted with increasing volume. Humphrey said we shouldn't discriminate as there were plenty of Republican bums deserving to be thrown out as much as their Democrat colleagues.
Both Thom Thomson and Senator Lovejoy spoke about the fiscal problems visited upon the people of New Hampshire by both the legislature and the governor, with legislative Democrats willing to spend money the state doesn't have, implementing tax hikes that hit the people most affected by the recession, and attempting to 'appropriate' private funds from a medical malpractice fund in an effort to fund the runaway budget. The governor also failed to protect the taxpayers in the state by refusing to use his veto pen to stop the 30% increase in state spending over the past 2 budgets.
While other TEA party protests drew some number of infiltrators/agitators, the Manchester protest drew only one 'visitor' from the New Hampshire Democrat Party, and he pretty much just watched the activities.
All in all it was a great gathering with appreciative crowd all sharing the same message: "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more!"
Resistance to ObamaCare at the state level is growing. AG's of a dozen states have already said they'll bring suit to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare, in particular the part making to mandatory for American citizens to purchase a service or be fined (or imprisoned). Some states are working on or have passed legislation negating that requirement, seeing it as a violation of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment.
New Hampshire State Senator Jeb Bradley has filed such legislation here in the Granite State, making mandatory health insurance illegal without due process, meaning a court could order someone to obtain it as part of divorce/custody/child support agreement, but only then.
I wonder if the Democrats, and specifically Obama, will get the message that this piece of legislation is hated by a majority of the American people. No need to answer that as we already know they know, but don't care.
The Democrats talk a pretty good game about jobs and how they're so supportive of labor. Unfortunately what they don't tell is that their 'support' usually ends up causing labor to lose jobs. And while the Democrats blast the Republicans as being pro-business, it is those businesses that provide jobs for labor, something often overlooked or purposely ignored by them.
Here's an interesting graphic that shows an interesting correlation between which party was the majority in Congress and job growth, courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Skip at Granite Grok.
It's certainly worth the thirty minutes. And then some. He's great. Just say no to government encroachment and the sapping of energy and independence from dependency--which really took off under Republican administrations.
The race for the US Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy is heating up. While Democrat Martha Coakley first thought it would be a cakewalk to the Senate, Scott Brown worked hard to disabuse her of that notion. The support he's received via fed up Massachusetts Republicans, independents, and Democrats has been amazing. So has the campaign's fundraising, pulling in about $1 million a day since the blogosphere kicked into high gear on his behalf. While Coakley has had to rely on lobbyist and special interests to raise campaign funds, Brown's funding has been grassroots, with the average donation being approximately $77 per contributor. Small donations have been pouring in from all over the country.
Coakley has shown how out of touch she is, blasting Scott Brown for taking all that "out of state" money...while standing outside the Washington DC fundraiser held for her by out of state lobbyists. The worst thing? She probably doesn't realize just how hypocritical she really was. And this is someone the people of Massachusetts should send to the US Senate?
Coakley knows her campaign is in trouble when even the Massachusetts SEIU locals are supporting Scott Brown, campaigning for him even though they aren't being paid $50 par day to hold one of his signs. Does this mean the Dems will have to bus in out-of-state SEIU members to carry signs for Coakley? Or will they be used to...umm... encourage voters heading into the polls to vote for Coakley, much like the New Black Panthers did during the Presidential elections in 2008?
The Democrats are pulling out all the stops, using every dirty trick in the book in order to get Coakley elected. The problem is that every time they do, Brown's poll numbers go up. I guess that means the folks in the People's Republic of Massachusetts have come to realize the state's Democratic leaders don't really have their best interests at heart, particularly when they keep pushing the worst possible candidate the party could have fielded like she's the second coming of Teddy.
If Brown pulls off an upset, that will give voters in other states some hope. Goodness knows we could use some here in New Hampshire, where the Democrats hold both chambers of the General Court and the Governor's office and have been doing their darnedest to push the state into insolvency with profligate spending and higher taxes at a time when no one can afford them.
While each of the finalists was deserving, there can be only one man of the year -- Sarah Palin. In the pantheon of people who stood up this year for that which is right, no one else stood taller or looked better.
She endured the most and came to symbolize the majority of American citizens who are stunned by the attempt to rapidly dismantle this great nation of ours and transform it into another Euro-weenie socialist country that apologizes for trying to save the rest of the world over the years.
The cynic in me said I should honor the person most responsible for reviving the conservative movement -- Barack Obama. His arrogance and over-reach gave people pause. The plunder of the treasury in February caused even apolitical people to question his true motives.
But conservatives make lousy cynics. Skeptics yes. We refuse to act now, think later.
Indeed.
Though Sarah is no longer in office, she has not let that stop her from becoming a symbol for many of the frustrated people of Middle America (and I'm not talking about fly-over country, but about those of us stuck between the "gimmee-gimmees" and the looters..er...members of the political elite). We're sick and tired of being talked down to or being told we have to give up even more of our hard-earned money to a government that apparently has no scruples in regards to pissing it away on things most of us don't want, has no understanding of the real worth of those hard-earned dollars, and no understanding of how the economy works in the real world. It has become evident to more and more Americans that Sarah Palin gets it because she is one of us.
She understands the problems with profligate government spending, government corruption and how it costs the taxpayers, the poison of the so-called "Old Boys Network", and has a firm grasp on the concept of frugal spending (i.e. don't spend what you haven't got and don't go into hock just to spend it). Is it any surprise she draws large crowds at book signings and speeches?
Will she run for president in 2012? Who knows. Even if she decides not to run, she will be someone those aspiring to the office will have to measure up to. If they cannot appeal to Middle America, they will not get the votes they need to win.
I can understand why Don chose Sarah Plain as Man of the Year.
It's been just shy of a year since the 2008 elections, Barack Obama has been in office for a little over nine months, and what are those on the Left and the Right talking about?
Sarah Palin.
For someone part of the losing presidential ticket last year, she's been getting a lot of attention.
The Left is still apoplectic about her, wishing nothing more that she'd go away and fade into obscurity. Their hatred of her is almost pathological, with so many of them trying their best to destroy her, as Bill Whittle sums up most eloquently is one of his latest video op-ed pieces:
For someone the Left sees as "stupid", "out of her depth", and a "Wasilla hillbilly", they're spending a lot of effort to crush her. If their characterizations were true, why would they need to expend so much time and energy to do so?
Because they fear her, seeing her as a threat to their Messiah, the Narcissist/Teleprompter/Apologist-In-Chief.
He's an empty suit. Sarah Palin is the real deal, someone just about everyone (except the elite in both parties) can relate to.
It doesn't matter that she doesn't speak eloquently. There are plenty of poseurs capable of doing that, including President Obama. But she gets to the heart of the matter, speaking plainly, something Obama seems to be incapable of doing. Instead, he speaks in broad, general terms, dancing around the issue, implying much but not actually saying anything. His followers hear what they want to hear, not what it is he actually said. With Sarah Palin you pretty well know she means what she says and says exactly what she means.
Despite the Left's machinations, Palin has survived manufactured scandal, personal attacks against her, personal attacks against her family, bogus ethics complaints (everyone was found to be without merit), disparaging remarks about her education (she didn't graduate from an Ivy League school, but at least her transcripts are open to the public), lack of experience (How many states did Obama run before he became President?), and an endless list of complaints from a number of less than honorable leftist organizations because she's not a neo-fascist feminist, baby-aborting, agnostic/atheist, hire-the-nanny-to-raise-the-kids, career comes first modern woman.
Palin's survival has frustrated the Left (and the inside-the-Beltway Right) to no end. It is a subtle form of revenge for her, for she is going forward, outlasting her enemies and living better than they are, which is one form of revenge most of us can relate to. She's been willing to make decisions most politicians would be afraid to even think about.
Well, just who is looking out of touch and foolish now? Hint: It isn't the Killa from Wasilla.
What is the real story here is that given a set of singularly difficult circumstances, Governor Palin made a counter-intuitive and gutsy decision that has already proven right for all parties involved. We call that brilliance. We call that effective leadership.
Perhaps inside the beltway, those measures of wisdom and intelligence and instinctive leadership are out of date. All too often in that world, decisions are made by what is the safe play and by what will play well with the pundits. Damn the consequences to others, just pull that focus group report and make sure we look good to the media.
That was not how Palin measured her decision. She was willing to look outside the box for a possibility, and when she found an idea that worked for everyone she grabbed it. Quickly. And she never looked back. Why Dan Rather might call that "...courage..."
She has that in spades, far more than a lot of other our so-called leaders could even dare to show.
Freed from the specious and endless ethics complaints being filed by a small but well supported group of Democrat activists in Alaska, she can now move about and speak freely about topics local, national, and international. Should she ever gain the White House (she hasn't announced or even hinted about any future political ambitions), she would be far better prepared to fill that office than the present occupant could ever dream of being.
Looking At The Left has a report on the activities in Washington, DC where a reported 2 million anti-big government, anti-big spending protestors made their voices heard.
Some attending have called it "the conservative Woodstock." I call it the usually silent majority finally finding their voices.
There were a number of differences between this protest and other protests held by those of a more progressive bent. I think the most obvious one was the scarcity of professionally printed signs. Almost all of them were hand-made. Another - most of the people there paid their own way to get there.
"I'll tell you what I find impressive. I'm watching the Fox news video about 15 minutes after the end of the event. The crowd has thinned out enough that you can see the ground and there is not a speck of trash on the grass. Absolutely clean. To contrast, google 'pictures of litter on the mall after the inauguration.'"
I noticed that too, and not for the first time. After the April 15th Tea Party protest in Manchester, New Hampshire it was the same thing: the park was clean. Does this mean conservative protesters care more for the environment than liberal protesters because they're willing to clean up after themselves?
I decided I needed to take a small break from posting my thoughts about Obama, health care reform, the non-stimulus stimulus package, and a host of other Obama-driven topics. There are plenty of others out there covering those topics far better than I. Instead, I'm going to cover a topic near and dear to my heart, something I have experienced first hand (as I am sure more than a few of you out there have as well).
On more than one occasion I have found myself to be in a social situation where I am one of the few conservatives (if not the only one) among a group of liberals. It doesn't happen often, but when it does it has always been an uncomfortable situation.
It's not that once they find out I am conservative I end up having to defend my beliefs, or that I am looked upon with something akin to pity, disgust, or a little of both. I can handle that. What I find truly disturbing is that far more often than not they talk about how they feel about a particular issue rather than what they think. After a few minutes of being lectured to about how evil and unfeeling I must be, I find it disturbing to realize far too many of them are parroting the same words and phrases as if the only ones they know were the ones they were programmed to utter. I've come across very few that had come to their political points of view through debate, careful thought, and actual experience. (I have a profound respect for liberals of that kind even if I disagree with them as they tend not to be knee jerk reactionaries and are able to have a thoughtful non-emotional debate about the issues. But these days they are a rare breed.)
What doesn't surprise me all that much is that by far there are far more conservatives in occupational fields that require a firm understanding of the hard sciences or the technologies derived from them. That could be because people in those fields must learn to think critically in order to be successful in their endeavors. Emotion, political dogma, and political correctness have no place in such fields because they can't be quantified and because no amount of emotion or political rhetoric can change the value of pi. No matter what, the value of pi will be 3.1415926535897932.... There are no surveys or polls or legislation that will change the value of pi no matter how hard we wish or how many signatures are gather on petitions to change it.
The ability to think critically crosses over into our politics, where we can look at the issues with the same eye as we do our work and come to conclusions based upon facts, prior history, and other indicators.
Is this the only reason conservatives are conservatives? No, of course not. The example above was merely one avenue where people come to see the value of conservative political beliefs.
Others come to the 'dark side' as liberals call it, through personal experiences. How many times have we heard this old saw? "Conservatives are liberals mugged by reality." Maybe the reason we hear it as often as we do is because it's true. Maybe what some of our more vocal and less thinking liberal brothers and sisters need is a dose of reality. It would probably shake many of them to their very core and awaken a part of them that has been subsumed and buried by years of liberal indoctrination. But that's not likely to happen any time soon.
So in the mean time we conservatives will have to keep plugging along, listening to the liberal drivel that passes as profound thought among them, and be prepared to show them at every opportunity that they've confused emotion with actual thinking.
About Comments